bimi_vmc

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (BIMI DNS record status, VMC certificate details, etc.), which is helpful, but doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description adds value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and return values. It's front-loaded with the main action and provides specific details without unnecessary elaboration, making every word count.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (checking multiple verification aspects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It specifies what information is returned but doesn't cover error cases, format of return values, or operational constraints. It meets minimum viability but leaves gaps in contextual understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'domain' with an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. With only one parameter, the baseline is 4, as minimal parameter explanation is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Check BIMI and VMC for a domain') and the resources involved (BIMI DNS record, VMC certificate, logo URL, trademark info, expiry). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dns_lookup or ssl_certificate by focusing specifically on BIMI/VMC verification rather than general DNS or SSL checks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context (checking BIMI/VMC for domains) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dns_record or ssl_certificate. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.